Editing Sea of Japan naming dispute (section)

==Position of international bodies==
The main two international organizations which have been involved in the naming dispute are the [[International Hydrographic Organization]] and the [[United Nations]].

===International Hydrographic Organization===
{{main article|International Hydrographic Organization}}Limits of Oceans and Seas
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) coordinates with member countries over [[Hydrography|hydrographic]] issues. One of the organization's functions is to standardise the delineation of nautical regions. In 1929, the organization (then called the International Hydrographic Bureau) published edition 1 of "IHO Special Publication 23" (IHO SP 23), titled [[Limits of Oceans and Seas]]. This included the limits of the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and Japan, designated as "Sea of Japan"; however, at that time, Korea could not participate in the IHO because it was under Japanese rule. The name "Sea of Japan" remains in the 3rd edition of SP-23, published in 1953.<ref name="KHOA">{{cite web|title=IHO Special Publication 23|url=http://eastsea.nori.go.kr/eng/open_content/iho/magazine.asp|publisher=Korean Hydrographic and Oceanographic Administration|year=2004|access-date=10 September 2010|archive-date=30 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121230120242/http://eastsea.nori.go.kr/eng/open_content/iho/magazine.asp|url-status=dead}}</ref> South Korea officially joined the IHO in 1957.<ref name="JCGchronology">{{cite web|title=Major Historical Background Information|url=http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/GIJUTSUKOKUSAI/nihonkai/keii_eng.htm|publisher=[[Japan Coast Guard]]|date=29 January 2009|access-date=21 November 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524121526/http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/GIJUTSUKOKUSAI/nihonkai/keii_eng.htm|archive-date=24 May 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

In 1974, IHO released Technical Resolution A.4.2.6. This resolution stated:
<blockquote>It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as a bay, a strait, channel or archipelago) under different names, they should endeavour to reach agreement on a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts.</blockquote>
South Korea has argued that this resolution is relevant to the debate about the Sea of Japan and implies that both names should be used; Japan, however, argues that the resolution does not apply to the Sea of Japan, because it does not specify this body of water and only applies to geographical features for which sovereignty is shared between two or more countries and not applicable to high seas like the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago.<ref name = MOFApamphlet2003/> Contrary to Japan's claim, there are no high seas in accordance with the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] (UNCLOS) in the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago. {{cn span|text=Even if Japan's usage of the term "high seas" includes exclusive economic zones, there are no grounds in international law for Japan's claim that these resolutions are not applicable to the case of East Sea/Sea of Japan.|date=April 2025}} The English Channel/La Manche, which is referred to in the IHO Resolution 1/1972 as an example of concurrent usage, is composed of only the territorial seas and the exclusive economic zones of the UK and France. The East Sea/Sea of Japan is also composed of only territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of its coastal states, which is no different from the case of English Channel/La Manche. Therefore, this resolution should be applicable to the case of East Sea/Sea of Japan.{{Cn|date=February 2025}}

In 2017, the IHO's 1st Session of the Assembly was held and the member states decided to discuss the future of S-23, taking into account the growing need to modernize the publication, the latest edition of which was published in 1953.{{Cn|date=February 2025}}

At the 2nd Session of the Assembly in 2020, the member states decided to replace the sea area names in S-23 with unique numerical identifiers and to develop a new digital standard (S-130) that meets the requirements of contemporary geographic information systems. While developing a data-set to designate geographic sea areas by a system of unique numerical identifiers only, S-23 is kept publicly available as it is, as part of existing IHO publication, to demonstrate the evolutionary process from the analogue to the digital era. The IHO currently has a project team working to release S-130 by 2026.<ref name="Second Session of the IHO Assembly (A-2)">{{cite web|title=Second Session of the IHO Assembly (A-2)|url=https://iho.int/uploads/user/About%20IHO/Assembly/Assembly2/A-2_Final_Summary_Records_EN.pdf|publisher=[[IHO]]|access-date=23 August 2024}}</ref> Japan and South Korea disagree on whether unofficial usage of the name Sea of Japan will decline following S-130's replacement of S-23.<ref>{{cite news|title=South Korea's Fight Against the 'Sea of Japan' Pays Off|first=Mitch|last=Shin|work=[[The Diplomat (magazine)|The Diplomat]]|location=Washington, D.C.|date=November 23, 2020|accessdate=February 16, 2025|url=https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/south-koreas-fight-against-the-sea-of-japan-pays-off}}</ref>

===United Nations===
While the United Nations has never directly addressed the issue of establishing an official, standardized name for the sea, several resolutions and statements by the UN have had relevance to the topic. Japan joined the United Nations in 1956, while South Korea and North Korea both joined in 1991.<ref name="UN members">{{cite web|title=Member States of the United Nations|url=https://www.un.org/en/members|publisher=[[United Nations]]|date=3 July 2006|access-date=10 September 2010}}</ref>

In 1977, the Third U.N. Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted Resolution III/20, entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended that "when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice." As with IHO Technical Resolution A.4.2.6, South Korea and Japan disagree about whether or not this policy applies to the East Sea/Sea of Japan.<ref name = MOFApamphlet2003/>

In 1992, during the 1992 Sixth UNCSGN, the South Korean government, in their first time participating in the UNCSGN, requested that the name the sea be determined through consultation, which the North Korean representative concurred with. The Japanese representative stated that the name of the Sea of Japan had already been accepted worldwide and that any change would introduce confusion. The conference recommended that the parties work together on the issue outside of the conference.<ref>{{citation|title=Report of the Sixth UNCSGN Conference|id=United Nations Publication E.93.I.23|pages=21–22|publisher=[[United Nations]]|year=1993}}</ref>

In 1998, South Korea raised the issue again at the Seventh UNCSGN. Japan, however, opposed the method by which the South Korean government proposed the issue, arguing that they had not followed the proper procedure for doing so. Following some debate, South Korea withdrew the issue, and instead recommended that the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names work so that a resolution could be submitted to the Eighth UNSCGN conference. The president of the conference urged that Japan, South Korea, and North Korea work towards a mutually acceptable agreement.<ref name="UNSCGN7">{{cite web|title=Report of the Seventh UNCSGN Conference|url=http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/7th-uncsgn-docs/7thUNCSGN-Report_E-.pdf|page = 18|publisher=[[United Nations]]|date=13–22 January 1998|access-date=30 March 2011}}</ref>

At the Eighth UNCSGN in 2002, South Korea and Japan presented a number of papers to the conference regarding their positions on the naming issue. South Korea asked for a resolution to adjudicate the name, while Japan asked that the name be decided through resolution outside of the conference. No resolution was passed, and the Committee again urged the countries to develop a mutually agreeable solution. The chairman further noted that standardization could only occur after consensus had been reached.<ref name="UNCSGN8">{{cite web|title=Eighth UNCSGN Conference Report|url=http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/8th-uncsgn-docs/8th_UNCSGN-E.pdf|publisher=[[United Nations]]|pages = 29–30|date=27 August – 5 September 2002|access-date=30 March 2011}}</ref> The same situation occurred at the Ninth Conference in 2007. South Korea and North Korea both proposed a resolution by the UNCSGN, while Japan expressed a desire to settle the matter outside of the conference, and the Committee urged the members to seek a mutual agreement.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ninth UNCSGN Conference Report|url=http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/9th-uncsgn-docs/report%20of%209th%20uncsgn%20n0750902%20en.pdf|pages = 29–30|publisher=[[United Nations]]|date=21–30 August 2007| access-date=23 September 2010}}</ref>

On 23 April 2004, the United Nations affirmed in a written document to the Japanese government that it will continue using the name Sea of Japan in its official documents.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/un0406.html | title = The Policy of the United Nations Concerning the Naming of {{'}}Sea of Japan{{'}} | publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan]] |date=June 2004|access-date=22 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=UN and U.S. use "Sea of Japan"|url=https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/page1we_000112.html|access-date=2021-03-29|website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan|language=en}}</ref> However, it agreed to leave the topic open for further discussion. In a letter to South Korea, it was explained that the UN was not determining the validity of either name, but wished to use the term that is most widely used until the parties resolved the disagreement. The letter further stated, "The use of an appellation by the Secretariat based on the practice is without prejudice to any negotiations or agreements between the interested parties and should not be interpreted as advocating or endorsing any party's position, and can in no way be invoked by any party in support of a particular position in the matter."<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.mofat.go.kr/pdffiles/en_Eastsea_1.htm| title = The Practice of the Secretariat of the United Nations Concerning the Naming of the Sea Area between Korea and Japan, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of South Korea| access-date = 22 November 2010| publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (South Korea)|South Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade]]| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120806062346/http://www.mofat.go.kr/pdffiles/en_Eastsea_1.htm| archive-date = 6 August 2012| df = dmy-all}}</ref>

[[File:28th Session of UNGEGN 3.JPG|thumb|upright|Ferjan Ormeling chairing 28th Session of the UNGEGN, New York 2014]]
On 6 August 2012, representatives from South Korea and North Korea addressed an assembly at the [[United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names]], asking that the names "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" be used concurrently for the sea. [[Ferjan Ormeling Jr.]], chairman of the conference, responded that the organization had no authority to decide the issue and requested that the involved countries resolve the differences over the name amongst themselves.<ref>[[Jiji Press]], "[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/08/national/genba-stands-firm-on-senkakus/ Genba stands firm on Senkakus; Koreas in 'East Sea' push] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160104222924/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/08/08/national/genba-stands-firm-on-senkakus/ |date=4 January 2016 }}", ''[[Japan Times]]'', 8 August 2012, p. 2</ref>